LIBEL CHILL, a term to describe the gagging effect on engaging in important scientific and medical debate imposed on legitimate writers, is dangerous and must be addressed, an audience at Dublin’s Science Gallery heard last night.
Simon Singh, an author specialising in writing about mathematical and scientific topics, was the subject of a two-year libel battle following an opinion piece which he wrote for the Guardianin 2008.
In the piece, he said there was “not a jot” of evidence to show that chiropractic manipulation could cure the likes of colic, ear infections and asthma in children. He was later sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).
Although the British Appeals Court recently overruled the original High Court judgment in favour of the chiropractors’ body, the experience had caused him a huge monetary and personal cost, Mr Singh told the audience.
“All the things my lawyer said came true. It did take two years, it was miserable, it was stressful, and it did cost a lot of money,” he said.
He said libel laws in England, where the costs of taking a libel case can be as much as £3 million (€3.54 million), stands at more than 100 times the cost of an equivalent case in Europe.
He said successful defendants in Britain will usually only get back about 60 or 70 per cent of the money it cost them to fight the case. “That’s why you’re crazy even to begin about thinking of defending your article, because ultimately you’ll always lose.”
He added that, while Irish libel costs were not as high as those in England, they were still about 10 times greater than in the rest of Europe. “It just shouldn’t be as long and drawn out and expensive to deal with matters that really aren’t that complicated,” he said.
The lawyer who defended Mr Singh in his case against the BCA, Robert Dougans, said libel laws were “broken”, adding that in its ruling the British Appeals court had noted that “scientific debate needed specific protection”.